The Father v The Mother and O By Cafcass Legal

Permission to withdraw an application for contact under rule 4.5(1) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 is a serious judicial decision, not a formality. The welfare of the child remains paramount, and terminating direct contact is a last resort. The court should consider whether further professional intervention, therapeutic work or a modified contact regime offers a realistic prospect of meaningful contact.

Where prolonged proceedings themselves harm the child, and the evidence shows no reasonable prospect of contact succeeding without a radical change in a parent’s attitude, permission to withdraw may properly be granted. Allegations of parental alienation must be assessed against the evidence. The label parental alienation syndrome should not replace an individual assessment of the causes and nature of the child’s resistance.

The father sought permission to withdraw his application for direct contact with his 12-year-old son, O. The application followed a prolonged county court and High Court history involving failed contact arrangements, allegations that the mother had alienated O, expert and social-work assessments, and an earlier Court of Appeal decision directing a further attempt to facilitate contact.

The mother and CAFCASS Legal did not oppose withdrawal. The central questions were whether permission should be granted, whether further proceedings could realistically restore direct contact, and whether continuation of the litigation would cause O further harm.

1. Permission granted. The application to withdraw the contact proceedings was granted under rule 4.5(1) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991. Withdrawal required judicial permission and was not merely administrative.
2. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, O’s welfare was paramount. The court recognised the importance of a child maintaining a relationship with both parents and treated termination of direct contact as a last resort. The court had made repeated attempts to restore contact, including reduced contact arrangements, supervised contact, mediation, representation for O, psychiatric assessment and consideration of a second expert opinion.
3. The evidence showed that O’s resistance to contact was principally associated with his father’s conduct and attitude, rather than deliberate maternal alienation. The father’s allegations against the mother were unsupported. His refusal to accept responsibility meant that there was no realistic prospect of meaningful direct contact in the short or medium term.
4. The court distinguished genuine parental alienation from the broader phenomenon of a child’s hostility or resistance to contact. In Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute: Interim Care Orders) [2003] 2 FLR 636, the facts constituted clear parental alienation. This case did not. The court approved the approach in In re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] Fam 260, reported also at [2000] Fam Law 615, that parental alienation syndrome was an unhelpful label because it assumed a cause and prescribed intervention.
5. The continuation of the proceedings was itself harmful to O. Since a further hearing offered no reasonable possibility of repairing the relationship, bringing the proceedings to an end was necessary. The court left indirect contact by letters, cards and presents available, and continued the interim prohibited steps order pending further argument.

1. Circuit Court: After successive contact orders and reviews, the circuit judge prohibited direct contact and declined to provide for a further review.
2. Court of Appeal: The appeal was allowed to the extent that CAFCASS Legal was appointed guardian for O and authorised to instruct a mental-health specialist. The court held that the proceedings should not yet have been ended and directed one further attempt to facilitate contact.
3. High Court (Family Division): The present court granted the father permission to withdraw his application after concluding that further proceedings offered no realistic prospect of meaningful contact and would prolong harm to O.